6

All the news coverage I've seen have indicated most of Ukraine are united in fighting Russia, saying things like "we will win eventually".

Still, recently in the news was Ukrainian president Zelenskyy firing several of his officials for alleged treason by collaborating with Russia. This seems to imply that there is a faction within the Ukrainian government that's in favor of collaborating with Russia, and by implication in favor of an immediate ceasefire.

Is there any indication that there is a faction in the Ukrainian government favoring an immediate ceasefire? If not, what about in Ukraine at large? As I understand it Ukraine has criminalized collaboration with Russia (which by their definition includes expression support for the war), hence if such a faction exists I imagine it'll either be underground or among Ukrainian exiles.

To clarify: I'm referring to Ukrainians who think Ukraine should implement an immediate ceasefire, but don't identify as Russian (e.g. by taking up Russian citizenship) and will choose to remain Ukrainian afterwards.

Timur Shtatland
  • 12,328
  • 2
  • 30
  • 80
Allure
  • 34,557
  • 16
  • 102
  • 190
  • 23
    I'm not sure how you make the connection that Ukrainian officials collaborating with Russia implies favoring peace. To me it sounds more like wartime collaboration, which Wikipedia describes as "Wartime collaboration is cooperation with the enemy against one's country of citizenship in wartime". – JJJ Jul 20 '22 at 14:06
  • 3
    @JJJ why wouldn't collaboration imply favoring peace? If the person collaborating gets their way, then presumably Ukraine would yield to some Russian demands in exchange for peace. It seems obvious to me that's the end result collaboration would push at. – Allure Jul 20 '22 at 14:24
  • 11
    @Allure You may be thinking about scientific collaboration where there's some benefit for both parties. The linked Wikipedia page gives one example of collaboration in this conflict: to assist as spotters for the enemy. That's also how I see the term (especially when mentioned alongside the term treason): to help the enemy get an advantage in battle. By your logic, the aggressor would be a peace maker too because they are forcing the situation on the ground to submit the other into accepting the aggressor's peace offer. – JJJ Jul 20 '22 at 14:43
  • 24
    -1 for framing collaborating with those that start a war of aggression as 'favoring peace' (and by implication, blaming those that resist the aggressor for not wanting peace). It seems like victim blaming to me. Also the idea that there will be a Ukraine when surrendering to Russia seems ... optimistic. – tim Jul 20 '22 at 14:47
  • @JJJ I do not understand your comment. Do you agree with my assessment of what the preferred end state for the alleged collaborators is? – Allure Jul 20 '22 at 17:05
  • 2
    @Allure This might be getting off-topic, so if you want to keep discussing let's do it in the dedicated chat room. In my view, there are two sides to the conflict and they're fighting over territory. The Ukrainian side doesn't want to lose its territory and the Russian side wants to use military force to further limit the territory which is under Ukrainian control. As such, they are fighting over a new border. Put simply, I'd say helping the Russians means helping to further reduce the territory under Ukrainian control. – JJJ Jul 20 '22 at 17:32
  • I have figured out why people are so up in arms over this question, and it's because they automatically associate the word 'peace' with 'good', so I edited that word out. Voting to reopen. – Allure Jul 20 '22 at 23:50
  • @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica the word 'collaboration' is used by the linked news article. – Allure Jul 21 '22 at 00:08
  • Zelensky is using that word in your article, sure. But he's hardly neutral, nor should he be expected to be. Of course, as a (just) war leader, he's not going to depict favorably people who want to enter negotiations asking for peace. And there's a difference between calling for a ceasefire for non-violence reasons. And those who collaborate with Russia and presumably don't mind the invasion and the violence in the first place. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Jul 21 '22 at 00:59
  • 8
    Since your comments mention that Zelensky is "after victory, not peace" and that some in the government may want to "yield to some Russian demands in exchange for peace", I think a more appropriate word for the question is 'surrender' and not 'peace' or 'ceasefire'. The Ukrainian government wanting peace/a ceasefire seems obvious (governments tend to not like having a war in their country), so the terms you're using might be why you've gotten the downvotes/close votes. – Giter Jul 21 '22 at 02:20
  • @Giter That's why I think some people are close-minded. Implementing a ceasefire and agreeing to some Russian demands in exchange for peace will be interpreted by some people as surrendering, but it won't by others (e.g. anyone who believes this https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/70898/have-any-politicians-in-ukraine-considered-ejecting-luhansk-and-donetsk). As for Ukrainian government obviously wanting peace/a ceasefire, I consider it the opposite, Ukrainian government clearly do not want a peace/ceasefire until they have ejected the Russians from Ukraine. – Allure Jul 21 '22 at 02:46
  • @Allure re. anyone who believes this? I asked that question and it most definitely was about Donbas Luhansk as they stood on Feb 23 2022 - that's made quite clear in it. Not as the situation is now. Don't use it as somehow equivalent to wanting peace right now, with Russia invading new territory since. And the Q really wasn't about peace negotiations then, it was about jettisoning a (much smaller) lost part of the Ukrainian territory because it wasn't likely after 8 years of people staying there after takeover to be cohesively Ukrainian. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Jul 21 '22 at 03:25
  • @Allure, why do you think Ukraine should agree to any demands from Russia, who clearly is willing to violate any agreement it provides? Especially after huge amount of civilians killed in a way that only terrorists behave? Russia is unable to make any real progress and is slowly collapsing. Every tank, plane, drone it loses, every missile it fires can't be replaced as Russia is unable to produce anything at all. On the other hand Ukraine is getting more and more advanced weapons. Ukraine clearly told: leave the territory and we will start negotiating. This is as peaceful as it can get. – Salvador Dali Jul 21 '22 at 03:46
  • @SalvadorDali where did you get the impression that I think Ukraine should or should not do something? I don't have anything else to say. – Allure Jul 21 '22 at 04:40
  • @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica Eh? The existence of that question does not mean you think it's a good idea, then or now. Even if you thought it was a good idea then (but no longer is a good idea now), it does not imply everyone who used to think it was a good idea no longer think it is a good idea. I really do not understand your comment. It seems like you are inferring all sorts of things that are not necessarily there. – Allure Jul 21 '22 at 04:45
  • Thanks for the clarification. Immediate ceasefire is a bit different from peace in general and much more well defined. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Jul 21 '22 at 11:59
  • @Allure you wrote: "Zelensky is apparently after victory". Could you add a source so I can understand the phrase. As I see it Zelensky wants Russia to stop the aggression. – Thomas Koelle Jul 21 '22 at 13:02
  • @ThomasKoelle you mean like this? https://www.archyde.com/zelensky-the-path-to-victory-will-be-very-difficult/ – Allure Jul 21 '22 at 14:21
  • 1
    @Allure thank you. Yes, exactly. Then I still think the premise for your question is wrong. The correct term you are looking for would be a one-sided ceasefire or people that support a surrender. But I guess the answer from Timur gives you exactly those – Thomas Koelle Jul 21 '22 at 14:35
  • @ThomasKoelle note the answer by Timur does not describe people who support a surrender. (On 7 March 2022 the party also demanded "from the leadership of the Russian Federation to stop the aggression against Ukraine and calls on the participants of the negotiation process to immediately decide on a ceasefire and withdrawal of all Russian troops from Ukraine.") – Allure Jul 21 '22 at 14:37

2 Answers2

13

The two most significant political Parties advocating for peace with Russia are Opposition Platform — For Life (43/450 seats in Rada) and Opposition Bloc (6/450). Both are currently banned.

REFERENCES:

On 24 February 2022 Russia launched a full scale invasion of Ukraine.[55] On this day party member Illia Kyva expressed support for the invasion and blamed the war on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and urged him to resign.[56][57] On 3 March 2022 Kyva was expelled from the party.[57] On 15 March 2022 parliament deprived Kyva of his mandate as a People's Deputy.[58]

On 7 March 2022 the party deprived Medvedchuk, who was charged with high treason in May 2021, of the post of co-chairman of the party; making Yuriy Boyko the sole chairman.[57][1] Medvedchuk had escaped his house arrest on 28 February 2022.[59] On 14 April, he was apprehended once again.[60]

On 7 March 2022 the party also demanded "from the leadership of the Russian Federation to stop the aggression against Ukraine and calls on the participants of the negotiation process to immediately decide on a ceasefire and withdrawal of all Russian troops from Ukraine."[1]

Opposition Platform — For Life: Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_Platform_%E2%80%94_For_Life

[Opposition Bloc] forum participants adopted the platform, which mentions that Opposition Bloc is for neutrality and preservation of the unaligned status of Ukraine, and a resolution which demands of the President of Ukraine peace and stopping of all bloodshed, resignation of the government, dissolution of the unlawful armed forces, and prosecution of those guilty in shelling of towns in the East of the country.

Opposition Bloc (Party): Wikipedia (Ukrainian): https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%86%D1%96%D0%B9%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BA_(%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82%D1%96%D1%8F)

T.E.D.
  • 14,342
  • 1
  • 29
  • 62
Timur Shtatland
  • 12,328
  • 2
  • 30
  • 80
  • 6
    But both parties are forbiden and one of their leaders Medvedchuk was inprisoned. But evenif not forbiden, none of that parties had something to do with government the last 8 years. – convert Jul 20 '22 at 17:16
  • 2
    ОПЗЖ had some seats in Rada, so it seems. – alamar Jul 20 '22 at 17:37
  • @convert: I listed in my answer the number of seats these two parties have won in the last election in Rada, the parliament of Ukraine. So these folks have been busy advocating for peace and other things. – Timur Shtatland Jul 20 '22 at 17:40
  • @Timur Shtatland I am tallking about situation after 24 February, befor that date this parties were represented in rada (ukrainian parliament) exactly like you told. – convert Jul 20 '22 at 18:18
  • 6
    For some reason you have not included important and well known information that the leader of that party Medvedchuk has strong personal connection to Putin. Medvedchuk is a personal friend and ally of Putin and Putin is a godfather of his child. – Salvador Dali Jul 20 '22 at 19:54
  • @SalvadorDali: Thank you for the comment! Feel free to add more interesting info like this in comments. Ukrainian politics is an interesting field, and Medvedchuk is quite a character. But I chose to err on the side of brevity in my answer. Maybe I will edit it later to expand a little... :) – Timur Shtatland Jul 20 '22 at 20:08
  • 4
    @TimurShtatland it would be great if you can add this information. You can verify that this is correct by looking at the wikipedia's page about Medvedchuk or by google search. As of right now you answer looks like: oh there are some parties, but they all are banned, so a random person might not realize that the reason that party was heavily pro-Russian is because it was its job to support anything that Putin wanted it to support as their leader was Putin's guy – Salvador Dali Jul 21 '22 at 03:39
  • The WP article on both parties uses past tense to talk about them. If neither exists anymore, it makes me wonder a) if all references in this answer shouldn't also be changed to past tense, and b) If this answer is even valid in the first place, since the question was in present tense and this answer is talking about currently non-existent entities. – T.E.D. Jul 21 '22 at 19:58
  • @T.E.D.: I am not writing off any of these parties, because certain politicians in Ukraine seem to come back with the inevitability of bad weather. Here is an example: one of these parties after the ban came back very much alive as Platform for Life and Peace. – Timur Shtatland Jul 21 '22 at 20:16
  • @T.E.D. : I would not even write off Medvedchuk. In prison? No problem! He could take an example from the book of Viktor Yanukovich: "On 15 December 1967, at the age of 17, Yanukovych was sentenced to three years imprisonment for participating in a robbery and assault.[43] On 8 June 1970 he was convicted for a second time on charges of assault. He was sentenced to two years of imprisonment and did not appeal the verdict." See: Viktor Yanukovych – Timur Shtatland Jul 21 '22 at 20:18
  • @TimurShtatland - Well, the people obviously still exist. But then shouldn't this answer be refocused to talking about them, rather than some historical parties? – T.E.D. Jul 21 '22 at 21:17
10

The "peace faction" covers most of the Ukrainian government starting from Zelensky himself. All they want is to restore the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine and then OK to sign a peace agreement. Only diplomacy can end Ukraine war, as he says.

I am not aware of anybody in Ukrainian government saying they plan to advance into the depth of Russia and take over that country. This does not look like a great plan anyway. Only some pro-russian thinkers envision such threats: "For Russia this conflict is about preservation not only of its elites, but the country itself". I still do not get how this would work.

Stančikas
  • 21,514
  • 1
  • 52
  • 113
  • 1
    I can think of more than one leader that only ever wanted to restore the territorial integrity of their nation... – Therac Jul 20 '22 at 16:12
  • 3
    @HK.51 But this is definitely more Russian style than Ukrainian. First, you give out passports and then you come liberate those who don't to be liberated. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Jul 20 '22 at 17:02
  • 3
    @Trilarion I can think of at least 20 such leaders. The position of "We shall have peace... when you hang from a gibbit for the sport of your own crows" isn't entirely pacifist. Yes, both sides are doing this. Everyone wants peace when it comes as a freebie with all your wishes fulfilled. – Therac Jul 20 '22 at 20:31
  • 12
    @HK-51 No it's not that both sides are doing it equally. Ukraine hasn't invaded Russia and Russia is not defending itself in Kherson or Charkiw. I would conclude that Russia has definitely prioritized peace much less here. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Jul 21 '22 at 06:56
  • 3
    I voted this down, because in my understanding the question excludes the support of the war even if it is for homeland defense. Zelenky's current opinion definitely supports the defense as well as the counterattack, and to reconquest even the de facto seceded areas pre-2022. As a sidenote, I remember Zelenky's campaign for presidency, and one of his promises was to bring peace at any cost, which can be understood as a possible compromise on Donbas (again, that was before 2022). – Adam Gyenge Jul 21 '22 at 14:17
  • 3
    The question is now significantly rewritten. It was initially "is there a peace faction in Ukraine". – Stančikas Jul 21 '22 at 15:16